V. Senthil Balaji vs State by Deputy Director & Ors (2023)

Case Summary: V. Senthil Balaji v. State represented by Deputy Director & Ors. (2023).

Case Stats

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. (Division Bench)
• Citations: (2023) 08 SC CK 0022
• Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284–2290 of 2023 (with connected SLPs)
• Date of Decision: 07-08-2023
• Disposition: Disposed of

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369235-v-senthil-balaji-vs-state?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=

Key Prior / Referred Judgments

• CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 (15‑day police custody window)
• Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 (custody/remand under special Acts)
• Ashok Munilal Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 16 SCC 158 (application of CrPC remand to PMLA)
• CBI v. Vikas Mishra, (2023) 6 SCC 49 (remand principles; cited)

Facts of the Case

• ED registered ECIR No. 21/2021 against the appellant (then TN Cabinet Minister); summons issued in 2021–2022; search under Section 17 PMLA on 13‑06‑2023.
• Arrest on 14‑06‑2023 under Section 19 PMLA; grounds furnished (acknowledgement declined). Intimation given to relatives.
• Produced before Principal Sessions Judge; judicial remand ordered till 28‑06‑2023; bail later rejected. ED sought custodial remand; 8‑day custody granted with hospital‑care conditions.
• Wife filed Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) before Madras High Court; Division Bench delivered split verdict on (i) maintainability of HCP after judicial remand, (ii) ED’s power to seek custody, (iii) exclusion of hospitalization time from the first 15 days. Third judge concurred with view permitting ED custody and holding HCP not maintainable on facts.
• Appeals/Special Leave Petitions filed by both sides reached the Supreme Court.

Law Points / Issues Raised

• Maintainability of a writ of Habeas Corpus after a judicial remand by a competent court, absent challenge to the remand order itself.
• Whether officers under the PMLA (who are not ‘police’ under CrPC) can seek custodial interrogation/remand via Section 167 CrPC read with PMLA.
• Computation of the 15‑day ‘police custody’ window—whether days of hospitalization (when actual custody/interrogation could not occur) can be excluded.
• Compliance with Section 19 PMLA (reasons to believe; grounds of arrest) and interplay with Articles 21 & 22 and Section 167 CrPC.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Sections 17, 19, 44, 45, 62, 65.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 2(h), 4, 5, 41A, 50, 167, 173, 190, 309, 469–470.
• Constitution of India: Articles 21, 22, 226.
• Evidence Act, 1872: Section 25 (as cited).
• Other special Acts cited comparatively: FERA, Customs Act, NDPS Act (select sections).

Obiter Dicta (Notable Observations)

• Habeas Corpus is ordinarily not a remedy against judicial remand; exceptional circumstances (e.g., patent lack of jurisdiction or non‑compliance rendering detention illegal) are required.
• PMLA is a sui generis statute; yet, by Section 65, CrPC applies insofar as not inconsistent—thus remand/custody principles under Section 167 CrPC can operate for PMLA investigations.

Ratio Decidendi

• A Habeas Corpus petition challenging custody is generally not maintainable after a reasoned judicial remand order by a competent court, absent demonstrable illegality; statutory remedies should be pursued instead.
• Authorized ED officers may seek custodial interrogation/remand in aid of PMLA investigation through Section 167 CrPC, consistent with Deepak Mahajan and Ashok Munilal Jain.
• The initial 15‑day ‘police custody’ period under Section 167(2) CrPC can exclude periods when custody could not practically occur (e.g., hospitalization), to prevent actus curiae/fortuitous events defeating investigation.

Final Ruling / Disposition

• Appeals disposed; ED’s power to seek custody under Section 167 CrPC recognized for PMLA cases; HCP not maintainable on facts of this case.
• Hospitalization time may be excluded from the 15‑day custody computation; remand/custody to be considered by the competent court on medical fitness and in accordance with law.
• Statutory safeguards under Section 19 PMLA and constitutional protections (Articles 21–22) continue to apply; no carte blanche to the agency.

Key Paragraph Numbers for Quick Reference

• Holdings on HCP maintainability post‑judicial remand: concluding analysis section.
• Recognition of ED’s custody power via Section 167 CrPC for PMLA: core reasoning section (mid‑judgment).
• Exclusion of hospitalization from 15‑day window; application of Anupam J. Kulkarni/Deepak Mahajan: analysis toward the end.

Summary (One‑Paragraph)

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by upholding ED’s ability to seek custodial interrogation in PMLA investigations through Section 167 CrPC, reiterating that a writ of Habeas Corpus is ordinarily not maintainable after a reasoned judicial remand by a competent court. On computation, the Court permitted exclusion of hospitalization days from the initial 15‑day custody window to ensure investigation is not frustrated by fortuitous circumstances. All steps remain subject to strict compliance with Section 19 PMLA and constitutional safeguards.

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369235-v-senthil-balaji-vs-state?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=